Sie sind auf Seite 1von 26

PACTE (2003).

“Building a Translation
Competence Model”. In: Alves, F. (ed.).
Triangulating Translation: Perspectives in
Process Oriented Research, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Building a Translation Competence Model

PACTE GROUP
A. Beeby, M. Fernández Rodríguez, O. Fox, A. Hurtado Albir,
W. Neunzig, M. Orozco, M. Presas, P. Rodríguez Inés, L. Romero
(Principal investigator: Amparo Hurtado Albir)
Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona

Abstract
This chapter presents the translation competence model that is being
worked on by the PACTE group and that is the basis for designing the
hypotheses of an empirical-experimental study of translation
competence. This research is the first stage in a larger project to
investigate the process of translation competence acquisition. The first
part of the chapter describes our theoretical framework and the first
models that we designed in 1998. This is followed by a brief
presentation of the design of the research project. The last part of the
chapter deals with the modification we have introduced in our 1998
translation competence model as a result of the first exploratory studies.

Introduction

The PACTE research group (Process in the Acquisition of Translation


Competence and Evaluation) was formed in October 1997 to investigate the
Acquisition of Translation Competence in written translation into and out of
the foreign language (inverse and direct translation). All the founding
members of the group are translators and translation teachers who train
professional translators in the Facultat de Traducció i d’Interpretació of the
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Our language combinations include
English, French and German ↔ Spanish and Catalan. We cover both direct
and inverse translation directions. This means that we all have different
theoretical and methodological backgrounds, but for a long time we had all
felt the need for more information about how trainee translators learn to
translate in order to create better teaching programmes, improve evaluation
methods and unify pedagogical criteria. Therefore, in 1997, we decided to
form a research group. Our first objective was to unify criteria, so our first
task was to build a model of the characteristics that define the professional
translator (translation competence) and a model of how translation
competence is acquired (translation competence acquisition) that could be
validated empirically. We also had to decide on an appropriate research
design.
We started from the concept of translation as a communicative activity
directed towards achieving aims 1 that involves taking decisions and solving
problems 2 , and requires expert knowledge, like any other activity with these
characteristics. In Translation Studies, this expert knowledge is called
Translation Competence. Consequently, the first stage in our research project
is an empirical study of how written translation competence functions, as
there is no generally accepted translation competence model that has been
validated empirically.
In our research, translation competence is being studied from two
complementary points of view: (1) the translation process, through the
collection and analysis of data obtained from experimental studies of the
mental processes used to translate, and the competencies and abilities
required; (2) the translation product, through the collection and analysis of
data obtained from an electronic corpus consisting of the texts translated by
the subjects participating in the experiment. Different instruments and
different types of data-collecting methods are being used, both qualitative and
quantitative methods, so that the data can be collated and triangulated.
There are two main stages in our research project: (Stage 1) an empirical
study of translation competence; (Stage 2) an empirical study of translation
competence acquisition.
This chapter centres on the translation competence model on which our
research is based.

Theoretical Framework and Models

In 1998, PACTE developed a first version of a holistic model for Translation


Competence and a dynamic model for the Acquisition of Translation
Competence (PACTE 1998, 2000, 2001; Hurtado Albir 1999, 2001: 375-408).
Our theoretical and working hypotheses are based on these models.

Theoretical framework

These models were constructed taking into account: (1) existing work in
other disciplines that have defined notions related to translation competence
acquisition; (2) models proposed to define translation competence and the
translation competence acquisition; (3) empirical research on written
translation.

1.Research into notions, such as “competence”, “expert knowledge” and


“learning processes” in other disciplines (e.g. Pedagogy, Psychology and
Language Teaching).
Given that we consider translation to be an act of communication, we
have drawn on studies of communicative competence 3 . These studies stress
the difference between competence (defined as a system of underlying
knowledge and abilities) and the activation of this competence under certain
psychological and contextual conditions. Furthermore, these studies consider
that this competence is made up of a set of inter-related sub-competencies,
amongst which are those needed to language use. Fundamental importance is
given to the strategic component to plan, repair, evaluate and carry out the
process. Some authors (e.g. Bachman 1990) also include psycho-
physiological mechanisms, that is the psychological and neurological
processes implied in the real use of language.
However, translation competence, that is the professional translator’s
competence, differs from communicative competence in that it is expert
knowledge. The characteristics of expert knowledge and its acquisition have
been studied in psychology, cognitive psychology, pedagogy, etc. 4 . Expert
knowledge is defined as being categorical or abstract and having a wide
knowledge base; it is conscious and can be made explicit; it is organised in
complex structures and can be applied to problem solving.
An essential element in understanding how expert knowledge works
and is acquired, is the distinction between declarative and procedural (or
operative) knowledge made by Anderson (1983) 5 . On the one hand,
declarative knowledge consists of knowing what: it is easily verbalised; it is
acquired by being exposed to information and its use is normally controlled
(e.g., knowing the addresses of web pages that are useful for translator
documentation). On the other hand, procedural knowledge consists of
knowing how: it is difficult to verbalise; it is acquired through practice and its
use is mainly automatic (e.g., knowing how to use a web page to guarantee a
translation’s precision and economy). The procedures with which this
knowledge is acquired or built (strategies and techniques) are very important.
The acquisition of expert knowledge passes through different stages.
Beginning with the initial stage (novice knowledge), the knowledge gradually
becomes more automatic until the final stage (expert knowledge) is reached.
This acquisition can be natural or guided, through teaching, but in both cases
there is a learning process. Studies of learning processes stress that the
acquisition of any knowledge is a dynamic process, cyclical rather than lineal
in nature. The process includes successive stages of restructuring knowledge
in which learning strategies play an essential role (i.e., the operations used by
the learner to obtain, store, recover and use information).

2.Models used to define “translation competence” and the “acquisition of


translation competence”.

Unlike other disciplines in which numerous studies have been carried out to
determine what constitutes expert knowledge in the field and how this
knowledge is acquired, no generally accepted model of what constitutes
translation competence or the acquisition of translation competence exists in
the field of Translation Studies. Some proposals have been made with respect
to translation competence in written translation 6 . Most, however, are limited
in scope as they deal only with specific aspects of translation competence. All
the proposals coincide in describing translation competence as a set of
components (in addition to strictly linguistic knowledge): cultural and subject
knowledge, documentation and transfer ability, etc. Nevertheless, only a few
include the strategic component 7 and none mention the psycho-physiological
component 8 . On the other hand, most of proposals are simply lists of
characteristics that define the translator, and do not suggest how these
components are related to each other or if there are hierarchies amongst them.
Furthermore, none have been validated empirically, i.e. data was not collected
and analysed within the framework of a structured research project.
As far as we know, only two studies have attempted an empirical
approach to research into translation competence as a whole: Lowe (1987)
and Stansfield, Scott and Kenyon (1992). However, as Orozco (2000: 113ff)
points out, Lowe’s study is, in fact, a proposal of the elements that indicate
levels of translation competence, not an empirical study. According to
Orozco, the work of Stansfield, Scott and Kenyon (1992), is the only real
empirical-experimental study of translation competence. The instrument they
created, called Spanish into English Verbatim Translation Exam (SEVTE),
was validated by reliability and validity tests. However, the authors
themselves indicate that the results cannot be generalised, given the
limitations of the sample (7 FBI employees).
As far as the acquisition of translation competence is concerned, very few
proposals have been made 9 . On the other hand, although some empirical
studies have been carried out to compare the performance of professional
translators and that of students of translation 10 , no longitudinal study has yet
been carried out to monitor the acquisition of translation competence as a
whole.

3. Empirical research on written translation in Translation Studies.

Empirical research into written translation first began in the 1980s 11 .


Although these studies do not focus on translation competence as a whole,
some of them approach partial aspects that cast light on some of the elements
that make up translation competence. For example, there have been studies of
the translator’s linguistic knowledge (Mondhal and Jensen 1992), linguistic
and extra-linguistic knowledge (Tirkkonen-Condit 1992, Dancette 1995,
Alves 1996), extra-linguistic knowledge (Dancette 1994, 1997); abilities and
aptitudes, such as creativity, emotional qualities and attention-span (Kussmaul
1991, 1995, 1997; Tirkkonen-Condit and Laukkanen 1996); documentation
(Atkins and Varantola 1997, Livbjerg and Mees 1999); strategies (Krings
1986, Lörscher 1991, 1992, 1993, Kiraly 1995).
The 1998 model of Translation Competence: A Holistic Model

The translation competence models that have been proposed in Translation


Studies are not firmly based on validated empirical research that provide the
data needed to describe the components of translation competence and the
connections between the components. Therefore, the PACTE group’s first
objective is to provide this research.
Our 1998 holistic model of translation competence (see PACTE 2000)
drew on the contributions mentioned above. A distinction is made between
competence (the underlying system of knowledge) and performance
(translating). It is postulated that translation competence is qualitatively
different from bilingual competence, the latter being one of the several
components that make up translation competence and that these components
are inter-related and there are hierarchies amongst them.
Furthermore, translation competence is considered to be expert knowledge
and it is primarily procedural knowledge, where strategies play a very
important role and most processes are automatic. Consequently, and taking
into account the results of the empirical studies in written translation
mentioned above, two components were added to the model: the strategic and
the psycho-physiological.
Thus, the basic premises of the model were:
(1) Translation competence is qualitatively different from bilingual
competence;
(2) Translation competence is the underlying system of knowledge needed to
translate;
(3) Translation competence is an expert knowledge and, like all expert
knowledge, comprises declarative and procedural knowledge; the latter is
predominant;
(4) Translation competence is made up of a system of sub-competencies that
are inter-related, hierarchical and that these relationships are subject to
variations.
(5) The sub-competencies of translation competence are considered to be: a
language sub-competence in two languages; an extra-linguistic sub-
competence; an instrumental/professional sub-competence; a psycho-
physiological sub-competence; a transfer sub-competence; and a
strategic sub-competence.
The language sub-competence was defined as the underlying system
of knowledge and abilities necessary for linguistic communication in both
languages. The extra-linguistic sub-competence was defined as implicit or
explicit knowledge about the world in general and specific areas of
knowledge: knowledge about translation (its ruling premises: types of
translation unit, the processes required, etc); bicultural knowledge;
encyclopaedic knowledge and subject knowledge (in specific areas). The
instrumental/professional sub-competence was defined as the knowledge and
abilities associated with the practice of professional translation: knowledge
and use of all kinds of documentation sources; knowledge and use of new
technologies; knowledge of the work market and the profession (prices, types
of briefs, etc.). The psycho-physiological sub-competence was defined as the
ability to use psychomotor, cognitive and attitudinal resources
In this model, the transfer sub-competence was the central competence
that integrates all the others. It was defined as the ability to complete the
transfer process from the source text to the target text, that is, to understand
the source text and re-express it in the target language, taking into account the
purpose of the translation and the characteristics of the receptor.
The strategic sub-competence included all the individual procedures,
conscious and unconscious, verbal and non-verbal, used to solve the problems
encountered during the translation process. This sub-competence plays an
essential role in relation to all the others, because it is used to detect problems,
take decisions, and make up for errors or weaknesses in the other sub-
competencies.
All these sub-competencies interact to make up translation competence
and they are integrated in every translation act, establishing inter-relations,
hierarchies and variations. The inter-relations are controlled by the strategic
sub-competence, because its role is to monitor and compensate for the other
sub-competencies, as it makes up for weaknesses and solves problems. In the
1998 model we considered that transfer competence plays a central role in the
hierarchy and integrates the other sub-competencies.
Variations in translation competence occur in relation to: directionality
(direct or inverse translation); language combinations; specialisation
(technical, legal, literary, etc.); the translator’s experience or the translation
context (translation brief, time available, etc.). Thus, for example, in inverse
translation the instrumental/professional sub-competence gains importance;
the strategies used by the translator vary according to the distance between the
language pairs used in the translation; in each translation speciality greater
importance will be given to different psychological abilities (logical reasoning
in technical translation, creativity in literary translation); a greater degree of
automation may be expected when the translator is very experienced; the
translation context (translation brief, time, etc.) may require a certain sub-
competence to be activated (instrumental/professional, psycho-physiological,
etc.).

A Dynamic Model of Translation Competence Acquisition

If few studies of translation competence exist, there are even fewer of


translation competence acquisition. There are some relevant studies in other
disciplines, but existing translation studies are only based on observation and
experience, and there are no empirical-experimental studies based on
representative samples. Although there are a few empirical studies that have
compared students’ performance with that of the professional translator
(Jääskeläinen 1987, 1989; Tirkkonen-Condit 1990; Jääskeläinen and
Tirkkonen-Condit 1991; Seguinot 1991, etc.), no study has been made of the
process of translation competence acquisition as a whole. As stated above,
PACTE’s final aim is empirical-experimental research into translation
competence acquisition.
The PACTE model developed in 1998 (see PACTE 2000) includes
insights from research into the learning process and postulates that translation
competence acquisition is a process of restructuring and developing sub-
competencies of translation competence. Therefore, translation competence
acquisition is defined as:
(1) A dynamic, spiral process that, like all learning processes, evolves from
novice knowledge (pre-translation competence) to expert knowledge
(translation competence); it requires learning competence (learning
strategies) and during the process both declarative and procedural types of
knowledge are integrated, developed and restructured.
(2) A process in which the development of procedural knowledge and,
consequently, of the strategic sub-competence are essential.
(3) A process in which the translation competence sub-competencies are
developed and restructured.

In the process of acquiring sub-competencies there are also relations,


hierarchies and variations. Thus, in the acquisition of translation competence,
the sub-competencies: (1) are inter-related and compensate for each other; (2)
do not always develop in parallel; (3) are organised hierarchically; (4)
variations occur in relation to translation direction, language combinations,
specialisation and the learning context. Therefore, the translation competence
acquisition process may not be parallel for direct and inverse translation.
Furthermore, depending on the language combinations, the process may be
more or less rapid, or, depending on the translation speciality (legal, literary
translation, etc.) one sub-competence may be more important than another.
On the other hand, the learning context (formal training, self-learning, etc.)
influences the acquisition process, as does the methodology used by teachers.

Research Design

Our research design includes several different types of tests with different
groups of subjects (PACTE 2001, 2002a, 2002b; Beeby 2000). Six language
pairs are used: English-Spanish; German-Spanish; French-Spanish; English-
Catalan; German-Catalan; French-Catalan.
There are several reasons for choosing these combinations:
(1) We want to experiment with several language combinations to observe
whether translation competence functions in the same way in them all.
Above all, we are interested in comparing language combinations
where the languages are close to each other (French-Spanish; French-
Catalan) with other combinations where the languages are more
distant (English-Spanish; German-Spanish; English-Catalan; German-
Catalan).
(2) These six combinations are the most common in the professional
translation market in Catalunya; the inclusion of two A languages
(Spanish and Catalan) reflects the bilingual, bicultural reality of
Catalunya.
(3) English, French and German are the three B languages taught in our
Faculty and they are used in translation classes in both directions
(direct and inverse).

Subjects, instruments and experimental tasks

Two types of subjects are used to study translation competence: professional


translators (experimental group 1) and “bilingual” subjects who do not
translate (experimental group 2). A questionnaire prepared for each group is
used to form homogeneous, representative groups and exclude subjects that
might introduce extraneous variables. This is to guarantee that the
experimental subjects really belong to the samples that are the object of study
(professional translators and bilingual subjects). For the groups to be
comparable, certain features or characteristics that could distort the results
have to be controlled (e.g., age, specialisation, length of work experience).
Three types of tests are carried out: exploratory studies, pilot tests and
experiments. The exploratory studies are observational and their purpose is to
improve the instruments and the hypotheses. The purpose of the pilot tests is
to test the improved instruments. Both are used to prepare the experiment.
Several different instruments have been designed: a commercial software
programme (PROXY), protocol texts for translation into and out of the foreign
language, questionnaires, a direct observation chart to observe subjects’
activities while translating, and retrospective and guided Think-Aloud-Protocols
(TAPs). Simultaneous TAPs are not used, not only because they make the
situation very artificial, but also because they may change the process, as the
TRAP group in Copenhagen suggests: “One of the problems in relation to
TAP’s is whether it is possible to engage in two complicated actions of a similar
nature (namely translating and thinking aloud) simultaneously, and whether one
influences the other. Having to think aloud during the translation process may
change the process, which obviously affects the quality of the data.” (Hansen et
al, 1998:62)
PROXY is a user monitoring programme, i.e. a programme that
permits the remote control of workstations and users connected to the same
network, that is able to record and monitor subjects’ activities during the
translation process, in real time 12 . The use of PROXY is most useful in our
study, particularly in relation to ecological validity (i.e., to guarantee that the
experiment reflects the real situation) 13 . The advantages its offers are as
follows: (1) it is compatible with Microsoft Windows, so that subjects can
work with the text processor they are most familiar with; (2) it can be used in
conjunction with other Windows applications, so that subjects can carry out
information searches on the Internet or in on-line dictionaries and CD-Roms;
(3) all subjects’ activities may be viewed and recorded in real time and
viewed later at different speeds (as if it were a video recording); (4) all
subjects’ activities during the translation process can be recorded and the data
obtained cross-referenced with data collected using other instruments (direct
observation charts, questionnaires, TAPs, etc.); (5) subjects are unaware of
the fact that their activities are being monitored and recorded.
Protocol texts have been selected for subjects to translate, one into and
one out of the foreign language. The texts included indicators of all the
translation competence sub-competencies, except for the strategic and transfer
sub-competencies. These two cannot be observed directly in the texts, but
only during the experimental tasks through direct observation and recording
by PROXY. Therefore, following our translation competence model, the texts
include indicators of: language problems (lexical, grammatical and textual);
extra-linguistic problems (encyclopaedic, cultural, subject-matter);
instrumental/professional problems (related to the translation brief,
documentation difficulties related to the number of queries or the unusual
nature of the information search); psycho-physiological problems (related to
coherence, style, etc., where creativity, logical reasoning, etc., have to be
activated to produce functional and dynamic equivalencies).
Different types of questionnaires are used. The first, (Questionnaire I), is
designed to obtain information about the subjects (translation training,
professional experience, type of texts translated, etc.) and their concept of
translation. The second, (Questionnaire II), is used to obtain information from
the subjects about the protocol texts they have translated (the problems
encountered and the strategies used to solve them).
The experimental tasks are the same for all the tests and consist of:
(1) the completion of a questionnaire to obtain information about the
subject (Questionnaire I);
(2) the translation of two texts, one into and one out of the foreign
language, monitored and recorded by PROXY;
(3) the completion of a questionnaire (Questionnaire II) after translating
each of the two texts;
(4) the completion of a retrospective, guided TAP; whilst viewing the
recording of the subject’s translation on the screen the researcher tries
to recover as much information as possible from the translator about
his/her cognitive behaviour and asks for clarification when necessary
(the reasons for certain decisions, pauses, corrections, etc.).
As the subjects translate each text, any activities that cannot be recorded by
PROXY are observed, without the subject realising, and recorded in
observation charts (consultation of printed materials, reading of the source or
target texts, etc.). The target texts produced by the subjects will be used to
build an electronic corpus of texts and this information will be cross-
referenced with the data gathered from the experiment.
In the study of translation competence acquisition, the experimental
subjects are translation students and the group of professional translators acts
as the reference group. The same types of tests are carried out over a period of
two years, starting with translation students at the beginning of their training,
and using the same experimental tasks and instruments as described above,
using a repeated measurement experiment design.

Current Stage of Research: Exploratory Studies in Translation Competence.

The conceptual stage of our study has been completed with the construction
of a holistic model of Translation Competence and a dynamic model of
Translation Competence Acquisition, which were used to deduce theoretical
and working hypotheses. Furthermore, the methodological stage has been
initiated by designing the research, measuring instruments and experimental
tasks.
Our research is now focused on the empirical study of translation
competence. In preparation for the final experiment, two exploratory tests
were carried out during the year 2000. In the first, subjects were members of
the PACTE research group. In the second, subjects were six professional
translators working in three language combinations (English-Spanish;
German-Spanish; French-Spanish), each language combination was
represented by two translators. In both exploratory tests, instruments and
experimental tasks designed for use in the final experiment were used.
These exploratory tests were observational and the aims were 14 : (1) to
test the holistic model of translation competence developed in 1998 (the sub-
competencies involved and the relationship between each); (2) to test and
improve the measuring instruments and the experimental tasks to be used in
the final experiment; (3) to establish our empirical hypotheses; (4) to select
variables. The results obtained from these tests are currently being analysed
and our findings to date are now being used to improve our measuring
instruments and our model of translation competence.
Findings obtained from the different instruments used in these tests were
collated and cross-referenced using custom-designed charts. Although an
exhaustive analysis has yet to be made of the results obtained, it has become
clear to the Group that certain changes must be made in the measuring
instruments used, and the 1998 model of translation competence should be
revised 15 .
Our tests have confirmed that the software program PROXY is a
particularly useful instrument for observing the translation process, and the
experimental tasks designed by the Group are appropriate for studying the
cognitive dimensions of translation competence. Although more detailed
analysis is required, it would appear that some improvements are,
nevertheless, required in the measuring instruments developed in relation to
the texts used, the indicators of sub-competencies and the questionnaires.
Given that this article focuses on the most important issues that have led us to
question the 1998 model of translation competence, the modifications made to
the instruments are not included (see PACTE 2002a).

Outcome of the exploratory test in Translation Competence

Our exploratory tests have enabled us to observe, and more precisely define, a
much wider range of activities carried out by subjects during the translation
process and have shown the need to modify our 1998 translation competence
model.

The Expert Translator’s Observable Activities.

One of the most significant results of the exploratory tests is a catalogue of


activities based on observation of the translator at work. These activities were
detected through direct observation (using the direct observation chart) and
through viewing the PROXY recordings (see Table 1):
(1) Activities detected through direct observation: first-time reading of the
source text (before writing), re-reading of the source text, revising the
target text, underlining, making notes, comparing source text and target
text and consultation of printed materials.
(2) Activities detected through viewing the PROXY recordings: immediate
solution to a translation problem; non-immediate solution to a translation
problem (after a pause, consultation, etc.); pause (longer than 5 seconds);
postponed solution; solution of a postponed solution; temporary solution;
final solution of a temporary solution; on-line consultation; use of new
technologies (Internet, text processing); and corrections (lexical items,
grammar, cohesion, coherence, etc.).
In order to investigate these activities we need to measure in the experiment:
(1) the time spent on each activity, to know which activities take up most time
in the expert translation process; (2) the number of times each activity takes
place, to know which are most commonly used by the expert translator; (3)
the moment they take place in the translation process, so as to be able to
follow the development of the process (movements backwards and forwards
in the text). Furthermore, we need to describe the characteristics of these
activities: Which elements are underlined and marked? What happens in the
pauses? What are the steps taken to reach a not immediate solution? What
happens between a postponed solution and its solution? What happens
between a provisional solution and its solution? What kinds of corrections are
carried out? Finally, we have to relate these activities to the translation
competence sub-competencies.

Table 1. Catalogue of the expert translator’s observable activities.


DIRECT OBSERVATION RECORDED IN PROXY
First reading of the source text Immediate solution
Re-reading of the source text Not immediate solution
Revising the target text Pause (longer than 5 seconds)
Underlining Postponed solution
Making notes Solution of a postponed solution
Comparing source text and target text Provisional solution
Consultation of printed material Solution of a provisional solution
Text processing
Consultation of electronic material
Corrections

Several characteristics of these activities indicate the complexity of the


expert translator’s behaviour, which is something we should study in our
experiment.

1.Observable and Non-observable Behaviour


The activities detected in the expert translator’s behaviour are observable
activities. However, translation competence as a whole is a construct that
cannot be observed directly. We can observe behaviour (the catalogued
activities), but not complex mental operations, which can only be accessed
indirectly through the activities.
Therefore, the catalogued activities are the translator’s directly
observable behaviour, the result of cognitive procedures that cannot be
observed directly. Nevertheless, we can access them indirectly using different
instruments 16 . Thus, the TAP and the questionnaires should help us to collect
information about this cognitive behaviour that cannot be observed by direct
observation or the PROXY recordings.
2.Automatic Activities
We have observed that these activities may occur immediately (automatically)
or not immediately (requiring more time and intermediate stages). Our
hypothesis is that the expert translator takes more immediate decisions that
lead to a positive outcome than the trainee translator, because the expert
translator already possesses expert knowledge and this, like all expert
knowledge, is largely automatic. Thus, in the experiment, attention should be
paid to immediate positive solutions of an element in the source text, which
should be more frequent amongst expert translators than trainee translators.
The questionnaires and the retrospective guided TAP that will be used
in the experiment should provide information about how conscious the
translator is about these more automatic activities and show that the translator
is not always conscious of this type of cognitive procedure.

3.Problem Solving and Decision Making


Interruptions in the process (pause) and elements that cause the translator to
delay taking a decision (postponed solution) or to take a provisional decision
(provisional solution) are the best indicators of the existence of a problem for
the translator. They mark the activation of sub-competencies and the
application of strategies (consultation of documentary sources,
reconsideration of the context, mnemonic aids, etc.) that help the translator to
take decisions. The translator takes decisions that affect the translation at all
levels: global aspects (work plan, etc.); macro-structural elements (corrections
that affect the coherence of the target text); micro-structural elements
(corrections related to micro-units of translation: lexical, grammatical, etc.).
All these questions will have to be observed in detail in the experiment.

4.Combinations and Chains of Activities


We have observed that when solving a translation problem, the translator
combines activities, and links together several activities, depending on the
particular problem. This indicates the crucial role of the strategic sub-
competence in controlling the whole process. Thus, in the experiment, we will
have to observe how these activities are combined and the hierarchical
relationships amongst them.

The need to redefine the 1998 Translation Competence Model

When attempting to establish links between subjects’ activities and specific


translation competencies, as a first step towards defining our empirical
hypotheses (i.e. what we wish to observe and contrast in our experiment), and
looking for ways to measure each sub-competence, we have found it
necessary to revise the definition and functions of each of the translation sub-
competencies included in our 1998 model of Translation Competence.
The modifications now being considered are related above all to the
following points.

(1) It would seem that the transfer sub-competence is not just one sub-
competence of the whole group of sub-competencies that make up
translation competence. All bilinguals possess a rudimentary transfer
ability, the natural translation ability described by Harris and Sherwood
(1978). The differences between this ability and expert translation
competence is due to the interaction amongst the other sub-competencies,
and in particular, to the role played by the strategic sub-competence.
Therefore, it would seem that this special transfer capacity of the expert
translator is the combination of all the sub-competencies, i.e. translation
competence: the ability to carry out the transfer process from the source
text to the production of the target text in function of the receptor’s needs
and the purpose of the translation. This redefinition of transfer
competence obliges us to modify the characteristics of the linguistic and
the strategic sub-competencies.
(2) Thus, there are two important aspects to be considered in relation to the
linguistic sub-competence: the fact that the expert translator as a bilingual
has the ability to change from one language to another, but also, that the
translator is able to separate the two languages that are in contact.
(3) It is becoming increasingly clear that strategic sub-competence plays a
crucial role in translation competence since it is used to: plan the
translation project; activate, monitor and compensate for shortcomings in
other translation sub-competencies; detect translation problems; apply
translation strategies; monitor and evaluate both the translation process
and the partial results obtained in relation to the intended target text, etc.
(4) Given its importance within translation competence, knowledge about
translation, which had previously been ascribed to extra-linguistic sub-
competence and instrumental/professional sub-competence, would now
appear to constitute a specific sub-competence Data collection would be
facilitated.
(5) Finally, psycho-physiological sub-competence would appear to warrant a
status somewhat different from that of other sub-competencies since it
forms an integral part of all expert knowledge. Rather than ‘sub-
competence’ it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of psycho-
physiological ‘components’.
On the other hand, we have realised that if translation competence is expert
knowledge, then it should be defined in terms of declarative and procedural
knowledge.

Redefinition of the holistic translation competence model


As a result of the above considerations, we have adjusted our definition of
translation competence and its sub-competencies as follows.
Translation competence is the underlying system of knowledge needed
to translate. It includes declarative and procedural knowledge, but the
procedural knowledge is predominant. It consists of the ability to carry out the
transfer process from the comprehension of the source text to the re-
expression of the target text, taking into account the purpose of the translation
and the characteristics of the target text readers. It is made up of five sub-
competencies (bilingual, extra-linguistic, knowledge about translation,
instrumental and strategic) and it activates a series of psycho-physiological
mechanisms.

The bilingual sub-competence. Predominantly procedural knowledge needed


to communicate in two languages. It includes the specific feature of
interference control when alternating between the two languages. It is made
up of pragmatic, socio-linguistic, textual, grammatical and lexical knowledge
in the two languages.
Pragmatic knowledge is knowledge of the pragmatic conventions
needed to carry out language acts that are acceptable in a given context; they
make it possible to use language to express and understand linguistic
functions and speech acts. Socio-linguistic knowledge is knowledge of the
socio-linguistic conventions needed to carry out language acts that are
acceptable in a given context; this includes knowledge of language registers
(variations according to field, mode and tenor) and of dialects (variations
according to geographical, social and temporal dialects). Textual knowledge
is knowledge of texture (coherence and cohesion mechanisms) and of
different genres with their respective conventions (structure, language
features, etc.). Grammatical-lexical knowledge is knowledge of vocabulary,
morphology, syntax and phonology/graphology.

Extra-linguistic sub-competence. Predominantly declarative knowledge, both


implicit and explicit, about the world in general and special areas. It includes:
(1) bicultural knowledge (about the source and target cultures); (2)
encyclopaedic knowledge (about the world in general); (3) subject knowledge
(in special areas).

Knowledge about translation sub-competence. Predominantly declarative


knowledge, both implicit and explicit, about what translation is and aspects of
the profession. It includes: (1) knowledge about how translation functions:
types of translation units, processes required, methods and procedures used
(strategies and techniques), and types of problems; (2) knowledge related to
professional translation practice: knowledge of the work market (different
types of briefs, clients and audiences, etc.) 17 .
Instrumental sub-competence. Predominantly procedural knowledge related to
the use of documentation sources and an information and communication
technologies applied to translation: dictionaries of all kinds, encyclopaedias,
grammars, style books, parallel texts, electronic corpora, searchers, etc.

Strategic sub-competence. Procedural knowledge to guarantee the efficiency


of the translation process and solve the problems encountered. This is an
essential sub-competence that affects all the others and causes inter-relations
amongst them because it controls the translation process. Its functions are: (1)
to plan the process and carry out the translation project (choice of the most
adequate method); (2) to evaluate the process and the partial results obtained
in relation to the final purpose; (3) to activate the different sub-competencies
and compensate for deficiencies in them; (4) to identify translation problems
and apply procedures to solve them.

Psycho-physiological components. Different types of cognitive and attitudinal


components and psycho-motor mechanisms. They include: (1) cognitive
components such as memory, perception, attention and emotion; (2)
attitudinal aspects such as intellectual curiosity, perseverance, rigour, critical
spirit, knowledge of and confidence in one’s own abilities, the ability to
measure one’s own abilities, motivation, etc.; (3) abilities such as creativity,
logical reasoning, analysis and synthesis, etc.

These considerations are illustrated in the following figure:


Table 2. Model of Translation Competence Revisited
Conclusion

The experience gained from the research carried out so far has led us to
redefine the sub-competencies of the 1998 translation competence model and
adjust their functions. It has become clear that translation competence is
qualitatively different from bilingual competence and that it is expert
knowledge in which procedural knowledge is predominant. Furthermore, it
has become increasingly clear that translation competence is made up of a set
of sub-competencies that are inter-related and hierarchic, with the strategic
sub-competence occupying a dominant position.
Once we have concluded the analysis of the data obtained from our
exploratory tests, the next stage of our research will be to redefine our
theoretical and working hypotheses (see PACTE 2001), establish our
empirical hypotheses and select the variables to be observed in our final
experiment.
Obviously, the revised model presented here is still subject to
modifications, because the definition of our hypotheses may lead to the need
for certain adjustments. Only when we have completed the experiment will
we have the necessary data to validate the model and reach a final version.
Although ours is an extended research project, and not without its
difficulties, we believe an attempt must be made to investigate the acquisition
of translation competence empirically. We are convinced that knowing more
about how translation competence functions and how it is acquired will lead
to better curricular designs for training professional translators. This is our
final goal.

Notes

1 See, for example, Nord (1997).


2 See, for example, Wilss (1988, 1996).
3 For our model, the most relevant studies of communicative competence are
those by Hymes (1971), Canale and Swain (1980), Canale (1983),
Widdowson (1989), Spolsky (1989), Bachman (1990), etc.
4 Also important are the studies of expert knowledge and learning processes
by Ryle (1949), Anderson (1983), Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986), Lesgold and
Glaser (1989), Pozo and Postigo (1993), Pozo (1996), Ellis (1997), Puente
Ferreras (1998), etc.
5 This distinction is based on the difference established by Ryle (1949)
between knowing what and knowing how, i.e. the procedures by which this
knowledge is acquired.
6 Proposals related to the functioning of translation competence were made by
authors such as Lowe (1987), Bell (1991), Hewson y Martin (1991), Nord
(1992), Pym (1992), Presas (1996), Hurtado Albir (1996a, 1996b), Beeby
(1996), Hansen (1997), Hatim and Mason (1997), etc. Other proposals made
after the beginning of the PACTE project are: Risku (1998), Campbell (1998),
Neubert (2000), Kelly (2002), etc.
7 See. Hurtado (1996b), Hansen (1997), etc.
8 This is only included in Kelly (2002).
9 Proposals related to the acquisition of translation competence include those
by Harris (1973, 1977, 1980), Harris and Sherwood (1978), Toury (1995),
Shreve (1997) and Chesterman (1997).
10 See, for example, Jääskeläinen (1987, 1989), Tirkkonen-Condit (1990),
Jääskeläinen and Tirkkonen-Condit (1991), Kiraly (1995), Lorenzo (1999),
etc. Seguinot (1991) is an interesting longitudinal study of the translation
strategies used by students, based on the results of translation tests given over
a period of six years, at the beginning and end of their training.
11 For a review of empirical-experimental research in translation, see Orozco
2000: 48-49 and Orozco 2001.
12 The use of PROXY for research in translation was proposed by W.
Neunzig and presented in his doctoral thesis (Neunzig 2001).
13 The criteria of ecological validity, as defined in the philosophy of science,
postulate that all experiments should reflect a real situation, and avoid
artificiality. It is perhaps one of the most difficult problems in any laboratory
experiment. It is obvious that our type of research is by definition “artificial”,
because it is difficult to design a situation in which the subjects, e.g., the
translators, are not influenced by the context or by the mere fact that they
know they are participating in an experiment. We do not use the
aforementioned think aloud protocols and video recordings to collect data
because they lack ecological validity.
14 See PACTE 2003 for a detailed description of the instruments and
experimental tasks.
15 These findings were presented in the II Encontro Internacional de
Tradutores (Belo Horizonte, 23-27 July, 2001) and in the Third International
EST Congress (Copenhagen, 30 August–1 September, 2001).
16 See, for example, in this volume, the work of Alves and Gonçalves;
Hansen; Livbjerg and Mees, that shed light on the translator‘s cognitive
processes, using TAPs, the Translog software, etc.
17 Other aspects intervene, such as: knowledge of translation associations,
tarifs, taxes, etc.

References

Alves, F. 1996. “Veio-me um ‘click’ na cabeça: The Theoretical Foundations


and the Design of a Psicholinguistically Oriented, Empirical
Investigation on German-Portuguese Translation Processes”, Meta
41(1): 33-44.
Anderson, J.R. 1983. The architecture of cognition, Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Atkins, B.T.S, and Varantola K. 1997. “Monitoring Dictionary Use”,
International Journal of Lexicography 10/(1): 1-145.
Bachman, L.F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in language Testing,
Oxford University Press.
Beeby Lonsdale, A. 2000. “Choosing a Research Model for Investigating
Translation Competence”. In Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in
Translation Studies I: Textual and Cognitive Aspects, M. Olohan. (ed.), 43
–56. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Beeby Lonsdale, A. 1996. Teaching Translation from Spanish to English,
Didactics of Translation Ser. 2, University of Ottawa Press.
Bell, R.T. 1991. Translation and Translating, London: Longman.
Campbell, S. 1998. Translation into the Second Language, London:
Longman.
Canale, M. 1983. “From communicative competence to communicative
language pedagogy”. In Language and Communication. J.C. Richards
and R.W. Schmidt (eds.), 2-27. London: Longman..
Canale, M, and Swain, M. 1980. “Theoretical Bases of Communicative
Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing”. Applied
Linguistics 1(1): 1-47.
Chesterman, A. 1997. Memes of Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dancette, J. 1997. “Mapping Meaning and Comprehension in Translation:
Theoretical and Experimental Issues”. In Cognitive Processes in
Translation and Interpreting [Applied Psychology, Vol. 3.], J. Danks et
al. (eds.), 77-103. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Dancette, J. 1995. Parcours de traduction: Étude expérimentale du processus
de comprensión. Presses Universitaires de Lille.
Dancette, J. 1994. “Comprehension in the Translation Process: an analysis of
Think-Aloud Protocols”. In Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2, C.
Dollerup and A. Lindegaard (eds.), 113-120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dreyfus, H.L, and Dreyfus, S.E. 1986. Mind over Machine. The Power of
Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Ellis, R. 1997. Second Language Acquisition, Oxford University Press.
Hansen, G. 1997. “Success in Translation”, Perspectives: Studies in
Translatology 5(2): 201-210.
Hansen, G. et al. 1998. “The translation process: from source text to target
text”. G. Hansen. (ed.). Copenhagen Working Papers in LSP 1, 59-71.
Harris, B, and B. Sherwood. 1978. “Translating as an Innate Skill” In
Language, Interpretation and Communication. D. Gerver and W.
Sinaiko (eds.), 155-170. Oxford: Plenum Press.
Harris, B. “How a Three-Year-Old Translates”, Patterns of Bilingualism.
National University of Singapore Press, 1980. 370-393.
Harris, B. 1977. “The importance of natural translation”. Working Papers on
Bilingualism 12: 96-114.
Harris, B. 1973. “La traductologie, la traduction naturelle, la traduction
automatique et la sémantique”. Cahiers de linguistique 3: 133-146.
Hatim, B. and Mason. 1977. The Translator as Communicator, London:
Routledge.
Hewson, L, and Martín, J. 1991. Redefining Translation. The variational
approach. London: Routledge.
Hurtado Albir, A. 2001. Traducción y Traductología. Introducción a la
Traductología. Madrid: Cátedra.
Hurtado Albir, A. 1999. “La competencia traductora y su adquisición. Un
modelo holístico y dinámico”. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology
7(2): 177-188.
Hurtado Albir, A. 1996a. “La cuestión del método traductor. Método,
estrategia y técnica de traducción”. Sendebar. 7: 39-57.
Hurtado Albir, A. 1996b. “La enseñanza de la traducción directa ‘general’.
Objetivos de aprendizaje y metodología”. In La enseñanza de la
traducción. A. Hurtado Albir (ed.). Estudis sobre la traducció. Ser.3.
Castellón: Universitat Jaume I, 31-55.
Hymes, D.H. 1971. On Comunicative Competence, Filadelfia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Jääskeläinen, R. 1989. “Translation Assignment in Professional Versus Non-
professional Translation: a think-aloud protocol study”. In The
Translation Process, C. Seguinot (ed), 87-98. Toronto: H.G.
Publications, York University.
Jääskeläinen, R. 1987. What happens in a Translation Process: think-aloud
protocols of translation. Pro gradu thesis, Savonlinna School of
Translation Studies: University of Joensuu.
Jääskeläinen, R., and Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 1991. “Automatised Processes in
Professional vs. Non-professional Translation: a think-aloud protocol
study”. In Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies,
S. Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (ed.), 89-109. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Kelly, D. A. 2002. “Un modelo de competencia traductora: bases para el
diseño curricular”. Puentes. Hacia nuevas investigaciones en la
mediación intercultural 1. 9-20.
Kiraly, D. 1995. Pathways to Translation. Pedagogy and Process, The Kent
State. University Press.
Krings, H.P. 1986. Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht. Eine
empirische Untersuchung der Struktur des übersetzungsprozesses an
fortgeschrittenern. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Kussmaul, P. 1997. “Comprehension Processes and Translation: A Think-
aloud Protocol Study”. In Translation as Intercultural Communication,
Snell-Hornby, M.; Jetmarova, Z.; Kaindl, K (ed), 239-248. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Kussmaul, P. 1995. Training the Translator. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kussmaul, P. 1991. “Creativity in the Translation Process: Empirical
Approaches”. K.van Leuven-Zwart and T. Naaijkens (eds.). 91-101.
Lesgold, A, and R. Glaser. 1989. Foundations for a Psychology for
Education, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
Livbjerg, I, and Mees, I.M. 1999. “A study of the use of dictionaries in
Danish-English translation”. In Probing the process in translation:
methods and results. [Copenhagen Studies in Language Series 24], G.
Hansen (ed.), 135-150. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Lorenzo, M. P. 1999. “La seguridad del traductor profesional en la traducción
a una lengua extranjera”. In Probing the process in translation: methods
and results. [Copenhagen Studies in Language Series 24], G. Hansen
(ed.), Copenhaguen: Samfundslitteratur.
Lörscher, W. 1993. “Translation Process Analysis”. In SSOTT IV Translation
and Knowledge. Y. Gambier and J. Tommola (eds), 195-212. Finland:
University of Turku.
Lörscher, W. 1992. “Investigating the Translation Process”, Méta. 37(3):
426-39.
Lörscher, W. 1991. Translation Performance, Translation Process, and
Translation Strategies. A Psycholinguistic Investigation, Tübingen:
Gunter Narr.
Lowe, P. 1987. “Revising the ACTFL/ETS Scales for a New Purpose: Rating
Skill in Translating”. In Translation Excellence: Assessment,
Achievement, Maintenance. [American Translators Association Series,
Vol. 1. ], Rose, M.G. (ed.), 53-61. New York: Suny Binghamton Press.
Mondhal, M, and Jensen, K. A. 1992. “Information Processing in a
Translation Task”, Multilingua. 11/(2): 195-216.
Neubert, A. 2000. “Competence in Language, in Languages, and in
Translation”. In Developing Translation Competence, C. Schäffner and
B. Adabs (eds.), 3-18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Neunzig, W. 2001. La intervención pedagógica en la enseñanza de la
traducción on – line. Cuestiones de método y estudio empírico. PhD
Thesis. Bellatera (Barcelona): Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Nord, C. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Functionalist
Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Nord, C. 1992. “Text analysis in translator training”. In Teaching Translation
and Interpreting 1, C. Dollerup and A. Lindegaard. (eds.), 39-48.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Orozco, M. 2001. “Revisión de investigaciones empíricas en traducción
escrita”, Trans 6: 63-85.
Orozco, M. 2000. Instrumentos de medida de la adquisición de la
competencia traductora: Construcción y validación. PhD Thesis.
Bellaterra (Barcelona): Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
PACTE. 2003. “Exploratory tests in a Study of Translation Competence”.
Conference Interpretation and Translation 5, (awaiting publication)
PACTE. 2002. “Una investigación empírico-experimental sobre la
adquisición de la competencia traductora”. In La traducción científico-
técnica y la terminología en la sociedad de la información. [Estudis
sobre la Traducció. Ser 10.] A. Alcina Caudet and S. Gamero Pérez
(eds.), 125-138. Castellón: Universitat Jaume I.
PACTE. 2001. “La competencia traductora y su adquisición”. Quaderns.
Revista de Traducció 6: 39-45.
PACTE. 2000. “Acquiring Translation Competence: Hypotheses and
Methodological Problems in a Research Project”. In Investigating
Translation, A. Beeby, D. Ensinger and M. Presas. (eds), 99-106.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
PACTE. 1998. “La competencia traductora y su aprendizaje: Objetivos,
hipótesis y metodología de un proyecto de investigación”. Poster, IV
Congrés Internacional sobre Traducció. Bellatera (Barcelona):
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Pozo, J.I. 1996. Aprendices y maestros. Madrid: Alianza.
Pozo, J.I., and Postigo, Y. 1993. “Las estrategias de aprendizaje como
contenido del currículo”. In Estrategias de aprendizaje. Monereo, C.
(ed.), 106-112. Barcelona: Doménech,
Presas, M. 1996. Problemes de traducció i competència traductora. Bases per
a una pedagogia de la traducció. PhD Thesis. Bellaterra (Barcelona):
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Puente Ferreras, A. 1998. Cognición y aprendizaje. Fundamentos
psicológicos, Madrid: Pirámide.
Pym, A. 1992. “Translation error analysis and the interface with language
teaching”. In Teaching Translation and Interpreting, C. Dollerup and A.
Loddegaard (eds.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Risku, H. 1998. Translatorische Kompetenz. Kognitive Grundlagen des
Übersetzens als Expertentätigkeit, Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Ryle, G. 1949. The concept of mind. New York: Penguin Books.
Seguinot, C. 1991. “A Study of Student Translation Strategies”. In Empirical
Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies, S. Tirkonnen-Condit
(ed.). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Shreve, M.G. 1997. “Cognition and the Evolution of Translation
Competence”. In Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting,
J.H. Danks et al. (eds.), Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Spolsky, B. 1989. “Communicative competence, language proficiency, and
beyond”. Applied Linguistics 10(2): 138-156.
Stanfield, C.W, Scott, M.L, and Kenyon, D.M 1992. “The Measurement of
Translation Ability”, The Modern Language Journal 76/(4): 455-467.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 1992. “The Interaction of World Knowledge and
Linguistic Knowledge in the Processes of Translation: a think-aloud
protocol study”. In Translation and Meaning, B. Lewandowska-
Tomaszczyk and M. Thelen (eds), Part 2, 433-440. Maastricht:
Euroterm.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. 1990. “Professional vs. Non-Professional Translation:
A Think-aloud Protocol Study”. In Learning, Keeping and Using
Language, M.A.K.Halliday, J. Gibbons and H. Nicholas (eds.), 381-394.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S, and J. Lukkanen. 1996. “Evaluations: a key towards
understanding the affective dimension of translational decisions”. Meta.
41(1): 45-59.
Toury, G. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies –and beyond. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Widdowson, H.G. “Knowledge of Language and Ability for use”, Applied
Linguistics 10, 2. 1989. 128-137.
Wilss, W. Kognition und Übersetzen: Zu Theorie und Praxis der
menschlichen und der maschinellen Übersetzung. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1988.
---. Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 1996.
1See, for example, Nord (1997).
2See, for example, Wilss (1988, 1996).
3 For our model, the most relevant studies of communicative competence are those by Hymes
(1971), Canale and Swain (1980), Canale (1983), Widdowson (1989), Spolsky (1989),
Bachman (1990), etc.
4 Also important are the studies of expert knowledge and learning processes by Ryle (1949),
Anderson (1983), Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986), Lesgold and Glaser (1989), Pozo and Postigo
(1993), Pozo (1996), Ellis (1997), Puente Ferreras (1998), etc.
5 This distinction is based on the difference established by Ryle (1949) between knowing
what and knowing how, i.e. the procedures by which this knowledge is acquired.
6 Proposals related to the functioning of translation competence were made by authors such
as Lowe (1987), Bell (1991), Hewson y Martin (1991), Nord (1992), Pym (1992), Presas
(1996), Hurtado Albir (1996a, 1996b), Beeby (1996), Hansen (1997), Hatim and Mason
(1997), etc. Other proposals made after the beginning of the PACTE project are: Risku
(1998), Campbell (1998), Neubert (2000), Kelly (2002), etc.
7 See. Hurtado (1996b), Hansen (1997), etc.
8 This is only included in Kelly (2002).
9 Proposals related to the acquisition of translation competence include those by Harris
(1973, 1977, 1980), Harris and Sherwood (1978), Toury (1995), Shreve (1997) and
Chesterman (1997).
10 See, for example, Jääskeläinen (1987, 1989), Tirkkonen-Condit (1990), Jääskeläinen and
Tirkkonen-Condit (1991), Kiraly (1995), Lorenzo (1999), etc. Seguinot (1991) is an
interesting longitudinal study of the translation strategies used by students, based on the
results of translation tests given over a period of six years, at the beginning and end of their
training.
11 For a review of empirical-experimental research in translation, see Orozco 2000: 48-49
and Orozco 2001.
12
The use of PROXY for research in translation was proposed by W. Neunzig and presented
in his doctoral thesis (Neunzig 2001).
13
The criteria of ecological validity, as defined in the philosophy of science, postulates that
all experiments should reflect a real situation, and avoid artificiality. It is perhaps one of the
most difficult problems in any laboratory experiment. It is obvious that our type of research is
by definition “artificial”, because it is difficult to design a situation in which the subjects, e.g.,
the translators, are not influenced by the context or by the mere fact that they know they are
participating in an experiment. We do not use the aforementioned think aloud protocols and
video recordings to collect data because they lack ecological validity.

14
See PACTE 2003 for a detailed description of the instruments and esperimental tasks.
15
These findings were presented in the II Encontro Internacional de Tradutores (Belo
Horizonte, 23-27 July, 2001) and in the Third International EST Congress (Copenhagen, 30
August–1 September, 2001).
16
See, for example, in this volume, the work of Alves and Gonçalves; Hansen; Livbjerg and
Mees, that shed light on the translator‘s cognitive processes, using TAPs, the Translog
software, etc.
17
Other aspects intervene, such as: knowledge of translation associations, tarifs, taxes, etc.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen